will ever listen to them. >[captioning performed bynationl captioning institute][captions copyright nationalcable satellite corp. 2013]>> question time airs live every wednesday at c-span2 when the house of commons is in session, and again sunday nights on c-span. watch any time at c-span.org, we you can find videos of past prime minister's questions and other british public affairs programs. >> next, former president bill clinton at a house democratic retreat. then steve latourette on the role of moderate republicans in congress. at 11:00, q & a with amity sh; lelaes. >> she was the first first lady to get a college education, and they celebrated their 25th

anniversary in the white house. meet lucy hayes in the new series, "first ladies, influence and image." examining the public and private lives of women who served as first lady. season one begins on on presidents' day, february 18,@ nine: 00 p.m. eastern and specific on c-span, c-span radio, and c-span.org. >> former president bill clinton spoke to pout -- house democrats friday on their annual retreat in leesburg, virginia. he discussed health care and gun control and immigration and also talked about the 2012 election. this is just over 45 minutes. >> i understand the next speaker does not need an introduction. but then i would not have anything to say. so you know -- thank you, thank you, thank you.

for over 20 years, bill clinton has been a determined evangelist for the american dream. the voters of this country put him in the white house twice. not only because he understands what the american dream is all about, but because he also has a gift for explaining why our party is so committed to defending and promoting the dream. during his eight years as president, he oversaw record job growth, 22.7 million jobs created. he also became the first president to balance the budget four years in a row. the stock market went up 226%. it went down 25% under george bush. the years of his presidency were a time when our middle-class felt secure. it was a time when our economy created opportunities for more

people to afford college. i have supported a constitutional amendment to repeal the 22nd amendment, which says that people cannot reelect a president for a third term. the chairman of the judiciary committee co-sponsored that with me. he was an opponent of term limits. i went up to him after the election and said henry, i'm going to put that bill in again. he said fine. on tuesday, we came back. henry was sitting on one of the seats. he said, i do not want you to put my name on that bill. henry, you have co-sponsored this for five congresses.

i discussed it with my staff and they say if we pass that amendment, bill clinton may be reelected. when i asked him why, he told me. it was a reflection of the respect and fear they have about bill clinton. he has continued to set his sights on service. after eight years in office, he had seen the terrible effects of poverty and illness of those living in the developing world. in launching the clinton global initiative, he continues to widen the constellation of challenges in which he has applied his extraordinary talents and energy. limits on religious freedom, every impediment to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

after president of the united states, he could only become president of the world. the praise the respect he receives from both sides of the aisle says big volumes about his character. the man he defeated, former president george h. w. bush said, if clinton were the titanic, the iceberg would have sunk. it has less to do with this sharp political acumen and more to do with his deeply held values and ideals. bill clinton believes in an america that is tied in a single garment of destiny. our fates are bound together and we should work together. a man from hope continues to work to give hope to millions. bill clinton has taught us that

while hope is a powerful motivator, it takes more than that to build the future we dream of. as we revitalize our discussion about how to renew the american dream, i ask you to join me in welcoming a great proponent of the american dream, the honorable william jefferson clinton. [applause] >> thank you very much. thank you. thank you. thank you. thank you very much. thank you. thank you.

thank you. thank you. >> we miss you. >> thank you. sometimes, i miss you. [laughter] most of the time, i like what i am doing. i want to thank steny for the introduction. we talked a few days ago when he said, what do you want me to say? i said, tell them you like playing golf with me. and that you did not throw the games. i want to congratulate and thank nancy pelosi for her tireless efforts in the last election cycle and all of her leadership.

thank you, joe kelly, my fellow new yorker. i understand she had to leave, but i was always reassured to see her on television when i was worried about the outcome. i want to thank steve israel, who i think has been one of the most thoughtful people in the house and who proved once again that if you really want to be successful in the long run in this business, you have to be good politics and policy. you have to think about what we're going to do and how will affect people. i have the honor of campaigning for a lot of you in the last election.

i am very excited about the new members. [applause] not only because if i were a member of this caucus, i would be in the minority, which i think is a good thing, but because the diversity extends far beyond the categories visible to the eye or that you can put in an adjective. there's so much difference here in terms of life experience and knowledge and understanding the various aspects of are extremely complex society that i think he'll have a real chance to do some phenomenally creative and effective things. a few years ago, a writer wrote

an interesting book called "the wisdom of crowds." since then, international surveys of how the brain works. if you took a room and you put in this room 20 or 25 people of average intelligence who cared about a set of problems and you put in another room a genius with a 200 iq and you kept feeding them questions and problems, over time, the crowd would make a better decisions than a genius. it is one of the reasons that we should be supporting diversity to build unity, the old harmony, build a better future. it is one of the reasons that i think where our party is and what we are trying to do so important.

i want to offer a few observations about this. i went through both the last few election cycles. i remember i told hillary in the process, we are going to take a terrible licking. i said, i do not want this on my conscience. i would like to talk about what this means. i read the president's remarks and i was very appreciative of what he said and i know vice- president biden was here. i want you to think about what

you were going to do the next two years, where you want to end up, and how this is a part of a long-term struggle. people sometimes ask me if i'd was upset when the whole pattern of budgets i tried to establish was repealed after president bush won and the congress went back to trickle-down economics. you have to understand, nothing is permanent. it is an ongoing enterprise. one of the oscar-nominated movies "lincoln" is about one of the most important areas of history. the heroic battle to pass the 13th amendment banning slavery. if you ask most americans about

lincoln, i know he was the president during the civil war. he was assassinated, he issued the emancipation proclamation. they know about the gettysburg address. that is about it. maybe they know the second inaugural address -- the finest inaugural address ever given. almost nobody knows the story of the 13th amendment. most americans do not even know the emancipation proclamation could only free the slaves and the southern states that have seceded. almost nobody knows why he decided to try to get it through congress when if he had waited until after he was inaugurated, it would have been much easier to pass. he was mortified by the fact that he could not get 75% of the states to ratify the amendment. he practiced politics.

what you are doing is a noble thing, but everybody will be watching. if you were doing that, there will be live coverage around the clock. we would all know, but would we understand it? it requires us to maintain a level of direct relationships with the voters that in former times was mediated by the way politicians related to leaders and newspaper editors and other things. i would like to talk about this. the last election was an election where people chose an inclusive future. they also were pretty savvy. they decided they believed in arithmetic after all and they did not like it when somebody said we will do this and we will

give you all these tax cuts and then when asked about what it meant and how we can pay for it, they said, see me about that after the election. that was a good thing. and they voted against going back on a lot of what we had done. make no mistake about it, this is not just about repealing obamacare and repealing much of what i did. this is about repealing much of the 20th century. somebody asked me, why are you doing this? i am too old to relitigate the things i thought had been settled in the 1960's and 1970's. [applause] i want us to worry about the 21st century and how to make the most of it.

i believe that we are in an interesting and delicate paradoxical position. if we are clear about where we are and what we have to do. there was a brief period at the end of the cold war where the united states was the only military, economic, and political superpower. i did my best to prepare us for an era in which we would still be the leading country in the world, but which others would enjoy on president and prosperity and once that happened, whether we really only military superpower was a

question of how they decided to spend their money. and whether we were a political superpower was a question of how they decided to spend their diplomacy. we're going to live in a more competitive world. one of the challenges all of you will face is that americans of almost all political stripes have been notoriously resistant to arguments based on what our competitors are doing. health care, economic policy, education policy, you name it. it is really interesting for a country that is so sports crazy because i can see the harbaugh brothers getting ready for the

super bowl, examining what every single player was doing and trying to figure out where the weaknesses were. we're going to have to get more comfortable being honest about the results the competition gets from doing x, y, and z. we led the world in the development of widespread usage of cell phones, but now on a national basis, south korea speeds are four times as ours. communities are increasing their capacity. chattanooga, tennessee, did and now they're becoming a health care center. google is spending all of that money in kansas city. we have got to be more comfortable in talking to people about what works. what is working that other countries are doing.

the diversity of the representation in the house will be helpful for that. i think also we have to learn something from how historically brave actions by your predecessors in this caucus played out in the electorate. when were they rewarded? when were they punished? and later rewarded? i cannot tell you how many nights in the white house, every single night before i went to bed, for months and months and months after the 1994 election,

i thought about the people who were defeated because they voted for the economic program, because they voted for the assault weapons ban. i knew exactly what happened. i thought a lot about those who survived and why they did. as you look ahead and you decide, what are we going to do about the budget, what are we going to do about having the democrats branded as the party of jobs and innovation for the future? make no mistake about it, the republicans will try very hard not to make it as easy for you to win by-reference.-- negative reference. there were some places where we won because people saw what they wanted to do when they did not like it. all of you sounded better. we now are going to have to have an affirmative agenda for jobs

and innovation. [applause] you have got to do it. it is important to do immigration right. and to do it as soon as possible. i think it is important to take some action now that it is possible on the issue of gun violence, but it is important to do a right. i could go across america if we had time and tell you who survived very well voting for the assault weapons ban and the brady bill in 1993 and 1994, and who did not. and why. i want to say a little about that. but i think that the people who disagree with us will not make

it quite as easy to draw the contrast by the things they do and say as they did last time. that is the message i got out of the house republican meeting. we're going to put on a happy face. it is easy to sneer at that, but depending on how you navigate troubled waters, and supporting the president's agenda in developing what i hope you will do, your own ideas how to promote jobs and innovation and try to win support, it is important to recognize that we have never -- except in the searing moments of the debates in presidential elections -- or

every year for the state of the union -- general images over a specific moments is a strategy of theirs is not necessarily guaranteed to fail. there are lots of things we can talk about on the politics. i want to talk about the substance. you were elected because people thought you were a better candidate. because you had a message people believed in. because you ran a political culture that would accept you as a potential member of congress. people did not blame our party for the conditions they face today do not like. i think the most important thing is this is a job.

it is a job. keeping it requires you to do it and to sell it simultaneously. it is normally harder at midterms because it is more difficult to draw the contrast in a way favorable to you and because the turnout goes down. we will talk more about that later. let's focus on the job. here is the dilemma. we do have a long term the debt problem. that does not mean austerity is the right response. i know -- i do not know what she said, but she is an impressive

person. here is the problem. paul krugman is right but you cannot be deceived by what he is when interest rates are below inflation. that tells you there is insufficient demand for money. therefore, you have to keep hoping that the economy to try to get going again./ and since the republicans won the house, they are trying to fulfil that role. and put more money into the economy because they always like, my experiences, they like austerity when democrats are president. i say that, that sounds more cynical than it is. they do not like to spend

taxpayer money on things that are best and in the future. they like to pay taxpayer money on things they think are ok. but their position to decide the debt was the worst problems in the world heard when i spoke in charlotte last september, it's hightly determined by who is in the white house. as all of you know. but that does not obscure the fact that we have a big debt problem and the debt problem that cannot be solved right now by conventional austerity measures. and that's why paul krugman is right 18 keeps talking about, everybody talks about austerity and a time of no growth. because you just get into the downward spiral and drag the

country back into recession. so we need a jobs program. and a lot of been a lot about this. i will not go into all this -- i have a lot of ideas about how you can do this. but we need a strategy to promote innovation, star of usinesses -- staturt up businesses, repatriate and bring back for investment in america money that is overseas with reforming the corporate tax laws. i personally would favor letting a lot of that might be brought back to a certain percentage were invested in it infrastructure bank in america. and you could even guarantee-- [applause] since the rate of return on infrastructure is so high, you could actually selling investments like you would tax- exempt bonds. you could guarantee, i will give

you 6% tax-free rate of return if you invest. if you did some of that repatriate money invested, a lot of investment funds would invest in it. a lot of them they're looking for higher returns than they can get in any conventional bond issue now, but have to have solid guaranteed returns to offset the risks they're beginning to take with investments in equities. i think that we could do a lot of this stuff, but you need a program to do this. i remember i did an event for congressman delaney. and i called our mutual friend terry mcauliffe. and i said delaney said more in five minutes about how to create jobs that i've heard anybody say in this campaign so far. and people were listening. i think it is really important,

we are not in the majority were not going to do that. when i left office, one of my regrets was that i did not raise more sand about things that i thought should be done because i did not want to waste any time talking about things i knew we could not pass to the congress. congress.h the i had this amazing argument with chairman greenspan, who i had a good relationship with, about the relationship that financial derivatives did not need to be regulated like agricultural commodities or commodities river is because only rich people could buy them. and i said, if you do not have any capital requirements, no class of people is immune from error, ignorance, or foolishness.

n out to be wrong,r at the time the republican majority did not want to fund the fec. o i didn't say as much in public as i did in private because i was trying to get a lot done. i later came to regret that just because i think sometimes starting the debate are important. we need an economic strategy. if you do not have growth, you cannot fix this debt problem. [applause] if you look at what is happening here, it is true that the deficit are going to be below $1 trillion for the first time in several years. and it is true that the new revenues raised in spending that you did not do. it is true that the economy is beginning to grow again. but this is almost like the reverse of what we did in 1993.

that is, i was prickly well aware if we raise taxes and cut spending, it could have a dragging effect in the economy. but not nearly as much as spending 40% of the budget paying interest on the debt. not nearly as much as having low growth. at nearly as much as having interest rates that were too high. so our gamble was that the explosive the fact of lowering interest rates, with a booming bond market and having more disposable income over a 5 =-10 year period would more than offset putting the hammer down by raising more money and cutting spending. it turned out to be a good gamble, but it made sense. it will make sense here again.

but timing is everything. and so, i think he should have a budget that does not defy our arithmetic but also, and doesn't fall into the trap that we have 20 of the last 32 years, which is that you get more money when you cut taxes. it is important we recognize that there is no growth or anemic growth, you do not get many revenues anyway. so what we need is a jobs program with all its elements and a longer term plan to bring the debt down that accelerates as growth picks up. yesterday there was this little chart. in "usa today." that said, "today, the budget

breakdown for federal spending in 2013 slated for entitlements, 60%, defense, 18%, nondefense, 50%, interest, 7%. because interest rates are so low. if this rates were today what they were when i was president, that number would be 15. where would you get the other 8? where was to get the other 8? that is why you need a long-term plan, because as it picks up you do not want to go to 15 overnight. you want to put the brakes on it, do this gradually and work it down. so i think we should put jobs and incomes front and center. in addition for future growth. but we need it -- innovation for future growth. but we need a plan for that. the other thing i would like to say is that today, primarily with the executive branch, but

it is something you have to watch. is that we democrats own the health reform issue now for good or ill. i personally think that it was the best bill you could pass in congress in the circumstances given the filibuster. i think we are going to pass of health reform bill. we had it. we did it. and there is a lot of good things in that bill. but it really matters how it's implemented. and if certain problems come up that need changing, we need to get caught trying to change them even if we cannot pass it because we have to do this right. spending at 17.8% of income on health care and

none of our competitors allow 11.8. we can't do it. i think i think it is very important to identify those areas -- you recall the study that said about 1/3 of the money was wasted and could be saved without compromising health care at all. we also should try to incentivize better decisions on the part of the citizens so that we can invest in while this and not just into sickness which is something spent a lot of time on. but i urge you not to walk away from this issue just because oa bill was passed. because the implementation of this bill and getting our income percentage in health care closer

to that of our major competitors that have longer life expectancies and better health of comes and we do, if you look at pennsylvania, they are the one place i am familiar with that every year under state law publishes the cost of every certain services, surgeon ries, it is clear every single year there is no connection between the price paid and the result achieved, even with in pennsylvania which is a large state with this in the amount of diversity and therefore, good enough for us to learn from. stay with this. make it work. prove that we were right to do with. it had to be done. one of the reasons that median family income before the crash was lower than the day i was office -- i left office, so many

employers had to spend it on insurance premiums instead. i urge you not to think that that is something you did and paid a terrible price for in 2010, check the box, walk away. i think it is important. and it will be important long- term to balancing the budget. i don't have an answer to this problem, but what i wish we could do was not permitted under the budget rules. because as all the know, the republican answer on health care issues, including medicare and medicaid, would beat -- get it off the books. right? give it to the states. end a budget problem. privatize medicare. end of budget problem. the problem is they are proposing to take people from a

less expensive system to award as a system and say miraculously the market will make a more expensive system less expensive one really all it does is clean up the government books but aggravates the macroeconomic problem. for problem i get that. but our problem coming back is that we cannot release for what will be the end result of changing the entire payment system, for example. and paying for performance rather than procedure which i think has to be done. all these things that have to be done are not necessarily -- [applause] >> i do not know how you are going to do this, but i think that this will be very important. the lumbering underneath the reader economics issue is the health care issue that i think there are plenty of people in this caucus who are knowledgeable enough and careful enough and creative enough to figure out what to do about it.

let me mention two other things. i believe that you will get immigration reform for all the reasons everyone has p oitned out. i would be as for gleaning as i could on this issue for any number of reasons. i read a piece the other day that says there is now a standing annual demand for 120,000 workers with computer science degrees and is by the fact you have college graduates driving a cab, we only produce 40,000 people with computer science degrees. until we can figure out how to close that and are spent gap, -- our spend gap, we should have an immigration to help. i would give every college graduate in america that comes from another country and presents no security issue whatever incentive i had to let

them stay here and work until we have solved these problems. that is what i would do. the irony of our electing all these children of immigrants to congress and letting everybody tell the story is that there are no simple countries that have come up with developed economies, including australia and canada, that have a higher percentage of their population as new immigrants than we do. we are now back to where it was. because of all of this. we need to work this through. the details matter. but i think it is really really important to do it and do it right. and last thing i would like to

say is, it's of this as a political strategy that it's very much in the interests of our party and the values of the policy is and the directions we believe in to get the midterm electorate to get more like the electorate in presidential years. i think that is obvious. but i also think that we should not rely on demography alone. we should not give up on our ability, particular when these periods, when we are not in the of the election to begin a conversation with people who are not as extreme as a lot of the candidates they voted for and the republican party, we could be for us. is see this gun issue as an opportunity, not a toxic land

mine, but it depends on what you do. one of the things that disturbs me when i was serving, that i saw jerry forward and manifestative in 2010, in saw the elections, we have had too many people who consulnt with us and tell us how to do things, do poles and tell us how to do things. here are these five things you have done in four of them are really popular. this is a hot issue. talk about one through four. and now think about that. would there be a successful marriage that took the position? would there be a successful business enterprise or sports other kind ofy relationship that depends on trust if you took that position? in my native state of arkansas would call that walking into somebody's living room and

seeing a huge pink elephant. if you do that, you do not get very far telling them all pretty the sofa is. that is wrong. if you are going to stir up a storm over health care, immigration, over what i hope you'll take as making a user access to poles and national priority. -- easier access to polls. you have to turn into them, not away from them. you cannot assume, that is not my demographic. we have nothing to say to them. they have nothing to say to us. to be one example. arkansas to ao 20th reunion of the arkansas travelers. they travelled all over the country. the again, when i ran for reelection and went to new hampshire for hillary.

there were hundreds of them and 70 have passed away since we started this. one of the people there was this unbelievable old-fashioned, hill country arkansas democrat, and he came up to me and he looked at me and he said," dont' let -- blowwo this gun 0- this gun debate bill >" ." but i said, "we got to do something." he said, i am not talking about this. he said, it was the biggest town in this country. it is not our demographic. and but he said, "i got a friend that owns dozens and dozens of ns.n a

he has more guns than anybody you know. i do not get this stuff in washington. he said, i do not see how anybody can be against doing a background check on everybody that buys a gun. he said i'd do it because i get all of mine from dealers, but if i get it online all have to do is a background check. he said, i will play something else. you cannot walk to my house for stepping over the guns. nobody doubts that i can defend my home. i do not need more than 10 bullets. he said, if you saw this guy and you walked into the house with dozens of guns you would say, let me get out of here without getting shot. it's important to turn -- not to give up on anybody, to talk to them. the worst that can happen is that people see that we are not crazy, all these people saying

you are trying to end those rights of the second amendment and all that are wrong. and then made a listen to you on the four things where they do agree with you. but they cannot hear the four things that they agree with you on if they do not even know where you are on the fitfth issue. that is my only political adviser want to give you. to start of the storm with this health care thing. there are a lot of people that do not understand it. explain it and make sure that make sure it works. to not let it go. -- do not let go because it is somebody else's problem. and also, it is a complicated issue. there is no in the world it can be perfect. it may be changing. the same thing is true in this gun debate. we need to stay with this issue but we can do it in a way that recognizes that there are people out there that aren't supposed to be part of our demographic. they're thinking about this,

too. they are not making a living as part of the washington lobby group. those children were killed. i guarantee you what a lot of people, where i grew up, were asking themselves the following practical questions -- if that young man had to load three times as often as he did, what all those children have been killed? people just out of the country that make a living doing, this is a big part of their lives, they ask questions like this. they are thinking about, what could been done, could anything been done? what about any other places? and they're more likely to figure out the answer to that then most of us who don't live with this every day. so turn into this. treat these people as our friends, our neighbors, people we share a country with.

i think you of a great opportunity. but the country is -- because we are diverse. with a great technology base. weaver great research base. we still have an immense -- we have a great research base. we have immense advantages. i think we're going to be fine but we have to learn to compare ourselves with the competition in a way that is nonthreatening and non- negative. we have to have a jobs agenda that is realistic and we need a 10-year budget plan that does not overdo the austerity. because when interest rates go up, you can see we are going to have impose austerity because we cannot stay as 7% of the budget with the debt this big with reasonable interest rates. and do it all in the same spirit that you took out in this last election. i think you will be fine. is a great time to be in public service. there is no reason to be

negative about the future. but now that you won this race that with the referendum and a -- in large measure on what the american people did not want, we have to create a future that thehy do want. = = they do want. thank you very much. [applause] >> now conversation with former ohio republican conve congressman. this is 35 minutes. host: we want to welcome back to c-span-2 president of the republican mainstream partnership. steve latourette. you have been out of congress for a month and a half. do you miss it? guest: i am able to go to

dinner and he was aware and do not have to stand up and eat with a toothpick. i tond' tmijss it. host: as you look at your role as part of this means your partnership, how to fix -- you look back at the last five or six elections, your party has failed to get 300 or more electoral votes. guest: the country is a center- right country. and in in order to be a national party we have to represent the entire nation. if you look at the last number of congressional races, even though we have been in a majority in the house of representatives, there is not one republican member of congress in new england, uyoyou can't do the math to get to 70 and above, unless you represent

the entire country. fix it by moderating the party. there is a tension going on, the base of the,party is very conservative -- the republican party is very conservative. but the at the same time you have to recognize that the republicans in new york may not look like republicans in texas. and there needs to be an acceptance of the divergent views, not sacrificing principle, but divergent views. my perspective is that anybody who wants to identify as a republican should be welcome in the republican party. host: let's take the gun debate. we have not go through this after columbine in after new time, many people calling for gun restrictions, "the national review". why we cling to our second amendment rights? this is a clear debate not only in the country but also within the republicans. guest: it is. there are ways for. and what is missing -- we focus

on the republicans for it but i want to bring republicans in ,too. what is missing is the forces that want to find a solution rather than -- if you look at the gun situation, the last six horrific shootings with assault- style weapons, five of the six have been committed by young white men who have on treating mental illness. now, you cannot tell me that some of the discussions that are being put forth on the left are going to solve that problem. and likewise you cannot on the republican side, on the right state that we are going to ignore the supreme court's indication of the second amendment which says that you can have reasonable restrictions on the way they you do -- on all the rights enumerated in the bill of rights. host: eric cantor delivering a speech before the american enterprise institute. talk about a way forward for the gop. here is a portion.

>> median income in 2010 was about the same as it was in 1997. now, exports are to experts poitns out that this statistic ignores that many working families are getting more benefits like health care from their employers, not just wages. but try explaining that, try explaining the rising health care costs but depressing take- home pay and saying that it's justified, that is little consolation to the working mom. russia bills are high. your kids have needs that are getting more expensive -- for grocery bills are high. she is trying to get by. i think all of us know getting by is not the american dream. host: as you hear what eric cantor had to say, what was striking about that speech is its focus on domestic agenda, a

middle-class agenda items and not some of the polarizing topics we've heard from republicans in 2012. guest: i'm a firm believer that the republican message on fiscal policy trump's the other sites message. and the majority leader, eric cantor has said, that is it benefited the economy? is it creating jobs? he is right on. there is no more important issue in this country. we have a basket full of issues -- the economy and job creation and death. that grouping has to be dealt with -- the economy and job redecoration -- creation and debt. host: 16.5 trillion is the nation's debt, and yet wall street continues to seek a record numbers. does it matter? is it resonating with americans? on main street. is

if you do not have a job, -- and again, the focus needs to be and how do we remove the uncertainty? that exists around taxes, spending, regulation, to encourage employers to get back into the market and hire people. host: let me share with you a lot of comments of whether we guest: i think it is. it is some mystery. the majority leader was indicating that if you do not have a job but does not matter it is 14,000. again, the focus needs to be and how we remove the uncertainty that recalls the wrong texan, spending, regulation to anchorage employers to give back into the market and higher people. host: a lot of comments about whether we are in a center-left or center-right country. we have this on social issues. there is no such thing as a republican moderate. guest: that is not true. if you look at the republican

mainstream partnership, the tuesday lunch bunch, we come from all backgrounds appeared to come from all parts of the country. on the issues that bill has just enumerated, we have different views. we have pro choice members of the republican mainstream partnership. people who take a different position on guns. that is exactly what i am talking about. there cannot be a litmus test on what makes a good republican. the issue should be, do you believe in fiscal responsibility, individual freedom, and a small, effect of government? if the bill even those things, you can be a republican. it does not matter what you believe and the other issues. we should be welcoming. the fact we can look at somebody and say, you are not good enough to be a republican because he did not be the litmus test, that is why we have not done so well in the last few elections. >> you lost the election, deal with it. guest: that is sort of a bumper sticker that is not accurate. the country is a 47-47 country. the fact of the matter is, if you look at the election results, not only the president to oppose the reelection, the great independent vote in the

middle and swings back and forth. 58% of independents voted for nancy pelosi's party. once a loss the speakership, 58% of independents won with john boehner. my view is, and i would say it is from being progressive or democrat, the country is in the battle. you can argue, is it a little bit to the upper a little bit to the right. the country is in the middle and what they expect our results. they do not expect life issues impound are just curious or a republican so i will not compromise one iota. the same thing is expected of the democratic party. host: our guest is not the president and ceo of the republican mainstream

partnership, which is what? guest: it was funded by a moderate republican and it was to create a place for moderate republicans to gather and get together and talk about issues and figure out how we per going to be a constructive force within the republican conference. not enough to create a block of votes to win anything. enough to be enough of a wedge to join with a blue dog democrats to speak up and make a difference of where it needs to be. host: you can join us on the twitter page or send us an e- mail. as you look back at the 2012 election, was it the message for the messenger that failed? guest: that is the debate going on in the republican party.

a lot of my friends a it was the messenger. i would argue gov. romney with all of the debates -- he was forced to take the stage he would not qualify to take the president of the u.s. states and take positions that were out of step with what the country is. the question came up not only in the primary but the debates of president obama, if you were offered a deal on the budget that had $10 of spending cuts for every dollar of tax increases are revenue, would be to the deal. he said no. that is the nut is thing i have ever heard. ronald reagan would have grabbed that with both hands. but the time we got to the general election, obama has been attacked so far to the right. but the time he got back, it was too late.

the campaign did a brilliant job of focusing on the eight swing states. they began advertising before conventional wisdom said to advertise in august. they put this car on bain capital and all the other day getting things on the table. by the time to get to november, there is a scab built up on the principle on socially moderate fiscal conservative women. even though they may not have been in love with with the president was taking the country economically, they could not get over the fact that the republican message from the primary was scary. host: marco rubio will be delivering the republican response to the state of the union address. he wants to put the gop on a path of cities -- citizenship for undocumented americans.

is he the future of your party? guest: i do not know if he is the future, but he is an important voice. he is the darling of the tea party down in texas. immigration is another example. there has to be a path forward. we cannot just be the party of, we are going to close our eyes and believed these 11 million people in the country do not exist. we have to deal with the issue. that does not mean you adopt amnesty when he approached some on the democratic side have. if there are two issues in the immigration fight and we can forge an agreement that deals with five of them, why don't you take that rather than saying if we can i get all 10, we will not do anything. host: why is that so hard to do? guest: this is regional.

i live in ohio. unless we get drunk canadians, across from lake erie, it is not a big deal. if i live in a border states like texas or new mexico or california, maybe i would have a different view. you have to balance all of the issues and the fact that people who did not follow our immigration laws have to deal with that issue. you have to be a compassionate human being and recognize we are talking about people and they are here and what do we do about its? host: we were talking about moderate republicans. this viewer says there are no moderate democrats. guest: that is on point. this congress is going to go down that had the least amount of swing districts. that means you do not have republican sitting in scenes that democrats have a chance --

republicans sitting in the seats that democrats have a chance of winning. when you have these swing elections in 2008, 2010, the people who get slaughtered are the moderates because they come from swing districts because the rates could go either way based on national trends. redistricting has led to these bright red or blue districts where a republican or democratic candidate can get 65% or 75%. they have to spend most of their time eating red meat to their base. you have seen these aggressive primary challenges. where you are from, a guy named tim holden was taken out in its primary. you have the same thing on my side where people come after moderate republicans and say, you are not a good enough republican.

host: he says, i cannot take these rhinos, republican in name only. guest: that is not constructive. when you look at my district, senator mccain beat president obama by 700 votes. it is the poster child for what a swing district is. you could not maintain a republican elected official, a member of congress, in that district if you adopted some of the extreme positions of some folks in my party maintained. likewise, he could not have a fire breathing progressive democrat who only went one way. the title of the job is representative. you are supposed to represent the people in your district and the people of the united states. not every person was a conservative republican.

host: we have a caller. caller: you had a guy on for illegal aliens and getting their citizenship. you put the phone number for illegal aliens to call in breaking our laws and you have the audacity to give them three or four times more on the air than the american people. people are so far to the left it is not even funny. host: i would respectfully disagree. this program and this network is designed to facilitate all kinds of points of view. that program was focusing on only one of the issues. if you watched the three networks 24-7, you will get what you want. you may not agree with every

event we cover, but we are designed to provide all facets of all issues to you and the american people. i would respectfully disagree, but go ahead. caller: i have a comment for your guests. marco rubio is not my savior. lord jesus christ as my savior. if marco rubio contents on illegals and homosexuals to get into the republican party, there will be millions dropping out of the republican party and they will be as bad as the democrats and they will never get elected again. is is getting ridiculous. if they want to pass laws on the illegals, let them pass the mexican law. host: thanks for the call from florida. guest: john represents a point of view that is a valid point of view. there are 300 million americans. the objective is to craft legislation consistent with the

united states constitution that addresses the needs of everybody in the country. with the growing perception -- percentage of the electorate that is hispanic, you cannot just say we are not going to talk about it. to john's point, that does not mean you throw up your hands and say, you can do whatever you want. you have to engage in conversations. i give senator rubio credit for engaging in the compensation. host: one viewer says, john should not be watching c-span or "washington journal." he should be watching glenn bdck -- beck. guest: one of the problems in the polarization of the country i would watch walter cronkite to see what happened then you would

go to bed and see what to do and come back the next day. with the 247 -- 24-7 new cycle, people cannot go to the media to get information. -- new cycle, people do not go to the media to get information. they go to give a reinforcement for what they already believe. that gives people the ability to say -- said this -- sean hanni ty said this, so it must be right. i use the internet a lot. give me the facts and let me figure it out. i do not need you to tell me what i think. host: on our line for democrats, from louisiana. good morning.

caller: i happen to travel from louisiana. i live in texas on a -- in a border town. what i wanted to address was, i have been thoroughly checked out by the united states government. i served in the u.s. military. for years, i never picked up the handgun. there are people who show up in the rivers and they wind up down in the gutters. it is just like another war out here. what we try to do is, we go into a facility and protect the american people from whatever is in that facility. i just got through listening to the other gentleman. you have the extreme left, extreme right. what we have is that operators. i can take my mechanism and beat

it all day long like a hammer. and it would never go off. we need to check out -- take out the bad operators. i went through all of the procedures and paid all of the money. i am one of the people who happen to be the working poor. i work to pay everybody else who is making all of the loans. host: thank you for the call. death i don't get what he was checked out to do -- guest: i do not get what he was checked out to do. $16.50 trillion on the debt clock. if we do not come to grips -- i

am looking forward to the president's speech on tuesday. he will pivot back to economics. if we do not come together to deal with the deficit and the debt, it does not matter who follows the rules. the debt is going to completely consume us. go back to the fiscal clear that the end of last year, which was my last horrah in the congress. they said, we have to stick it to the rich people and taxes went up on people making $450,000 or more. $66 billion is what was spent on hurricane sandy. it is enough to run the government for about six or seven days. did not do a thing. there are people in this country will say, the present one ban on taxes so we are in great shape. the president has to challenge his party on spending. we have to work this thing out.

host: if you look at entitlement programs, you can take social security off of the table. medicare and medicaid certainly are. are republicans and democrats in the mood to make serious cuts in those programs? guest: i belong to the fix the debt coalition. they say you have to have a big deal along the lines that the president and john boehner were working on a couple of years ago. he cannot continue to nibble at the edges. i would disagree on social security. i know that is the conventional wisdom. in 1968, lyndon johnson decided to hide the cost of the vietnam war by creating a unified budget so the social security trust fund began to be used for other sources. this past year was the first

your money out of social security past money coming in in the form of payroll taxes. when people say it does not contribute to the problem, they are right. we are redeeming ious that have been put in the social security system. where did the $48 billion come from? it has to come out of the general fund. you have to take a look. this is 2013. when social security started, life expectancy in this country was 63. today, it is 79. it was never designed to be a program that sustains you for as many years in retirement as you contributed into the system. medicaid is 2/3 of the budget. the famous bank robber says, why do you rob banks. because that is where the money

is. you have to look at entitlements and make tough decisions. >> that me share with you reporting of paul west's -- paul west. there are about 15 republican governors saying no to this expansion. there was a push to get all republican governors to oppose it. rush limbaugh says john kasich is up for reelection and he is changing with the people of this state are. he is reading the tea leaves. the president carried ohio. death ohio is the -- guest: ohio is the epicenter of these elections. i served with john kasich. he has correctly determined that

the medicaid expansion program is the best way to deal with ohio's uninsured. host: steve latourette suggesting the revenue is still on the table. do you think we need to reform the tax code to raise more money? guest: absolutely. when speaker boehner was talking to the president, he put $800 billion of revenue on the table. the conservative republicans said, you are talking about raising taxes. the speaker was talking about that, if you simplify the tax code and take away some of the gimmicks, deductions, safe harbors, you can raise $800 billion or $1 trillion over 10 years. that becomes the piece. then we should take the present at his word and there will be something like $2 or $3 for increased revenue.

that is how you make it work. host: as soon as the president talked about that, mitch mcconnell said it was off of the table. bill clinton talking on friday about the 2014 election. we are already talking about the next campaign when we have two years before voters goal to the polls. no plan and decide to get to these -- voters go to the polls. the plan on either side to these issues. guest: i offered it with jim cooper, a democrat of tennessee. we got 38 votes the first time we did it last year. they are up to 75. senator mcconnell is talking about the fact that we are not interested in raising the rates. at the end of the day, you could take away every private jet and every cayman islands account.

it does not get there from here. it is a more complicated problem than that. i think it is time for my former colleagues to stop worrying about the next election. i am living proof. the congress did not end when i retired from the congress after 18 years. it is time for people to reach the conclusion that we need to take care of the next generation and we need to take care of america rather than focusing on how am i going to win in 2014? host: we are talking to steve latourette. you are close friends with speaker of the house john boehner. is he still enjoying the job? guest: i have a one-year ban that i cannot talk to my former colleagues. i think the speaker is glad to be the speaker. i think he is doing a great job. people say the president has a tough job.

boehner has a really tough job. we are trying to get out of the fiscal cliff and that the same time do something good for the country. the republican vision was not only to raise taxes. john boehner said, two things are irrefutable. president obama has been reelected. get over it. and taxes are going up. there is nothing we can do about it. we need to get spending reductions to get this house in order. when some of my colleagues said they would not go along with the speaker on plan b and said you cannot bring a plan to the floor, that since the speaker into battle with no body armor. he has nothing to lay on harry reid's test or the president also does. host: joining us from south carolina on the independent line. caller: how are you today?

i never hear any moderation from the republican party. i think they do that because if they showed moderation, they would not get reelected by the social conservatives in this country. they would not have their support. this is about social circus -- social conservatives trying to change what is legal, basically abortion, what is not legal, the rights. -- gay rights. they completely forgets that the metal in this country wants us to be liberal -- middle in this country wants us to be liberal and progressive. i never hear from the moderates. why don't you take the abortion issue and gay rights of of your platform and show some moderation. do not be so extreme in your

point of view on the right and maybe the left will give in just a little bit and we can all libby -- live in the middle again. that is what we need. host: thanks for the call. death i have to disagree. there is a center of the but -- guest: there is a center of the republican party. i have to disagree. he must be lost. that is not the view that most of us republicans in south carolina have. the republican party is not going to abandon its principles just like the democratic party is not going to abandon their. on some of these issues, we should be spending more time focusing on the things people care about. that is the economy, getting a job, making sure your kids can

do as well as you have. they do not have time to talk about things that are the this is. host: when the recess, your guest does not understand and they are incapable -- one guest says -- one fewer says, you guessed it is not capable of solving the problem. guest: the solution is there. mitt romney had a plan. everyone sees that if you want to accommodate, if you want to find the sweet spot that is in the middle again -- you get

called a rhino or a turncoat. the purpose of the republican mainstream and the new democrats. they call us names and raise money based upon the fact -- encouraging the congress not to fix the problem. caller: good morning. how are you? i have a couple questions for mr. latourette. how come the republicans are so timid? every time you said, he won the election, but they did not say how he won the election.

it was voter fraud that got obama elective. there is proof of it because there is a lady in ohio that claimed she voted twice. how many democrats have voted twice? guest: it really wasn't close. the wake-up call for the republican party is that even though the republicans have the majority in the house of representatives, it is the first time we have been a majority where more americans voted for a democrat to represent them than for a republican. the distance have been constructed in such a way that the republican party has been

permitted to maintain their majority. with all due respect to the voter fraud, anytime somebody loses, somebody cries foul. we need to get past it. the president of the united states is the president of the united states. that is a that. he is going to be for the next four years. our challenge is not to figure out how to do everything the president wants to say. it is to be the loyal opposition and offer constructive solutions to problems that put people back to work and turn the economy around. >> on the next "washington journal," the politics of gun control. details on a new can that -- a new report on civic activities for young people. and the inspector general for afghan the construction talks about how much money has been about how much money has been spent in